APHC010282142026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4504/2026 Between: KARICHARLA SUJATHA, ,W/O SRINU,AGED 44 YEARS, OCCUPATIONHOUSE WIFE,R/O D.NO. 10-32, PANGIDIGUDEM ROAD,JANGAREDDIGUDEM TOWN MANDAL,ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,through SHO, Jangareddigudem Police Station,rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of A .P . at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: D TARAKA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4504 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.3 on pre-arrest bail in Crime No.164 of 2026 of Jangareddygudem Police Station, Eluru District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. No representation for the petitioner. Even on the last occasion also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Despite posting the matter under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, there is no representation. 3. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. As seen from the record, the allegation against the petitioner is that, in connivance with and with the active cooperation of the other accused, she forged certain documents and used the same as valuable security. The investigation is at a progressive stage and some more material witnesses are yet to be examined. In the present case, the 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4504 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 petitioner apprehends that her custodial interrogation may be required. 5. Despite several adjournments, there has been no representation on behalf of the petitioner, which shows that there is no real apprehension of arrest on the part of the petitioner and that the present petition has been filed only for namesake. Since the investigation is at an initial stage, the police are yet to ascertain the actual complicity of the petitioner in the case. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application is premature and not maintainable, as there is no imminent danger of arrest. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat1, reiterated the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra2, held that when there is no real apprehension of arrest, there is no necessity for granting anticipatory bail. 8. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B.,3, held that pre-arrest bail cannot be sought as a matter of right and that a genuine apprehension of arrest must be established. 1 (2016) 1 SCC 152 2 (1996) 1 SCC 667 3 (2005) 4 SCC 303 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4504 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the stage of investigation, and the alleged complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:22.06.2026 RSI 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.P.No.4504 of 2026 Dated 22.06.2026 70 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4504 of 2026 Date: 22.06.2026 RSI